Nostr Web Client

From what I remember you suggested to replace secp256k1 keys with ed25519. This isn’t even a serious suggestion and would hard fork nostr.

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

No I'm referring to my feedback on OnlyZaps where you went on a tirade in response to my politely expressed opinion that the implementation could be improved if you only altered the UX for the user who turned the feature on, not other users, as well as listing other issues like the assumption "no one would see your likes" which is only true if every Nostr client in the world adopted your feature the same way, plus it'd create more noise as people would use replies instead of hitting a like button.

Clearly my views were shared by many as you did eventually relent on this, but even then you did so with sarcastic changelogs.

Wrt Ed25519 it wasn't a feature request but more a general musing. You talked about using Nostr keys to replace PGP. I supported this idea but pointed out the inherent weakness in only being able to use sepc256k.

The addition of more secure (and better performing) ECC curves wouldn't require a fork of anything. Did moving away from RSA fork PGP and SSH?

A NIP could establish support for both curves. Clients can easily add support, there's libraries for Ed25519 in every programming language. New keys could be generated using Ed25519. Existing keys could even use the delegation feature Nostr already has.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

jb55 2y ago

I implemented your feedback even though I didn’t agree with it, this makes it “my way or the highway”?

pukka 2y ago

I think you’ve listened to almost everyone and tried to find the best way to implement something if you can. I don’t understand all that’s going on around here but have always felt you’ve had good intentions. Thanks for #[6] and thank you to all the other devs making amazing apps using nostr!

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

I did say you eventually relented on it, but again I'm simply pointing out that responding to user feedback on a beta with rudeness and hostility kinda defeats the purpose of a public beta.

And let's be real, so many people disliked your implementation that you knew someone would call your bluff and fork your client if you didn't change it, and many of your users would rather use that fork.

I also note you didn't respond to my rather obvious point that adding support for additional elliptic curves doesn't require a hard fork of anything. This isn't a blockchain where changing the cryptography creates a new consensus protocol.

This is a decentralised network built on top of TCP/IP where clients can add support for additional curves while providing backwards compatibility - exactly as TLS, SSH, and PGP have already done many times.

That's why my SSH and PGP keys use Ed25519 without requiring a fork.